Spinosaurus femur

[Haravex]

Up for sale on everyone's favorite auction website is the following while it doesn't look fake I am very cautious about buying anything from the site when it comes to fossil remains. I'm guessing the usual suspects troodon and lordtrilobite can help me

[Miocene_Mason]

They may, @LordTrilobite @Troodon

[LordTrilobite]

Judging from the available reference. It looks like it could be Spinosaurid. But this is based on the neotype from Ibrahim. But this neotype is pretty dubious. It's not that clear if it represents a single individual, and the story is a little iffy. Not to mention that they used Sigilmassasaurus material for their reconstruction as well.

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

Kem Kem, my favorite subject!

 

I put it below for comparison purposes, the femur neotype described by Stromer in the year of 1934 referring to Spinosaurus.

 

 

But I think neotype from Ibrahim fits more with your femur:

 

 

Ibrahim, Stromer and others ... Everything is a huge mess, and as LordTrilobite said, it may be more than one species, it may well be more than two species as well.

But I do believe that this your femur belonged to a spinosaurid theropod dinosaur, and who knows if in the future, with additional studies and new discoveries may end up proving to be from Sigilmassasaurus. But for now, I suggest label it as a femur of an indeterminate spinosaurid.

[LordTrilobite]

1 hour ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said:

Kem Kem, my favorite subject!

 

I put it below for comparison purposes, the femur neotype described by Stromer in the year of 1934 referring to Spinosaurus.

 

 

 

 

That's the tibiia I think, not the femur. There was only a partial femur associated with the Spinosaurus B specimen. But it's not really complete enough for a proper comparison.

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

16 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

 

That's the tibiia I think, not the femur. There was only a partial femur associated with the Spinosaurus B specimen. But it's not really complete enough for a proper comparison.

 

It's true, my friend LordTrilobite! Thanks for the fix, really was a gross mistake on my part. Even though Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was discovered in the Bahariya Formation in western Egypt, then I personally find it unlikely that if there was a complete femur of Stromer with Holotype, this femur could be used here because I believe they would be different materials, anyway, it's just one guess. What also becomes a fascinating debate, since the Holotype of Ibrahim really seems to have been assembled with fossils definitely not associated and that may even be of different species, and this causes the debate to continue until a discovery of a specimen more complete. For this and other reasons, for now, I suggest label it as a femur of an indeterminate spinosaurid.

 

[LordTrilobite]

Well the Ibrahim's skeletal reconstruction definitely was made from different species, as we know that specimens that should be referred to Sigilmassasaurus were also used. But if we assume the neotype itself is one individual, and not a composite, then that femur they found is likely Spinosaurus, since they claimed they found one skeleton that includes an almost complete leg, vertebrae and hip.

[Troodon]

The last photo seems to match quite well to the one in the image.  It's appears to be Spinosaurid but not sure if its a Spinosaurus.

 

[Seguidora-de-Isis]

28 minutes ago, Troodon said:

The last photo seems to match quite well to the one in the image.  It's appears to be Spinosaurid but not sure if its a Spinosaurus.

 

 

Precisely! I also think it's a Spinosaurid, but if it is really a Spinosaurus, Sigilmassasaurus, or another Spinosaurid that we do not yet know, I believe only the future will say.

[Haravex]

Thank you all very much for your input, it is very much appreciated and I'm guessing you both think nothing about it looks suspicious? oh also I forgot to say the femur is only 380mm long or 15inches so could be juvenile?

[Troodon]

The scale bar is shown in the attached image is 10 cm of that adult femur. 

 

 

[LordTrilobite]

I think in that image that scale might just refer to that ungual bone, not the femur and tibia. So the scale might be different for those bones.

 

Here is another image of the actual neotype that roughly shows how large it is.

[Flx]

I own a partial tibia that is probably from a spinosaurus. However, I am a bit confused when comparing it with the drawing by Stromer. Is this tibia (14a) from the right or the left leg of the animal?

[Flx]

I looked at this femur also to see if it fits the composite I am working on. 

Yes, it seems to be a juvenile (or not Spinosaurus)

 

According to Ibrahim et al. the length of the femur is 61cm for the neotype shown above. However, please note that the fossils found by Stromer are somewhat larger. Source: "Supplementary Materials for Semiaquatic Adaptations in a Giant Predatory Dinosaur"

[Troodon]

1 hour ago, LordTrilobite said:

I think in that image that scale might just refer to that ungual bone, not the femur and tibia. So the scale might be different for those bones.

 

 

 

Correct good pick up,   I & J are 20 cm  fixed it

[LordTrilobite]

1 hour ago, Flx said:

I own a partial tibia that is probably from a spinosaurus. However, I am a bit confused when comparing it with the drawing by Stromer. Is this tibia (14a) from the right or the left leg of the animal?

Stromer's tibia was from the Spinosaurus B specimen I think. So that would make it likely Sigilmassasaurus, not Spinosaurus. There was no leg material associated with the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. But the vertebrae associated with the Spinosaurus B specimen show similarities with those of Sigilmassasaurus.

[Flx]

4 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

Stromer's tibia was from the Spinosaurus B specimen I think. So that would make it likely Sigilmassasaurus, not Spinosaurus. There was no leg material associated with the Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. But the vertebrae associated with the Spinosaurus B specimen show similarities with those of Sigilmassasaurus.

 

Good to know. Thank you. 
Is my assumtion correct that the tibia in that picture is upside down and that it is from the left leg?

[LordTrilobite]

Left or right, I dunno. But I don't see why it would be upside down.

[Flx]

Hm... I thought the wide end of the tibia is usually where the knee is. 

[LordTrilobite]

Both ends are wide, but they have a different orientation. That's the front of the Spinosaurus B tibia you're seeing. If you'd view it from the side then the top would be wide and the bottom thin, like in the picture Troodon posted of the neotype leg bones.

[Flx]

5 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

Both ends are wide, but they have a different orientation. That's the front of the Spinosaurus B tibia you're seeing. If you'd view it from the side then the top would be wide and the bottom thin, like in the picture Troodon posted of the neotype leg bones.

 

Ok, I see... I thought I am looking at the tibia from the side.